United States v. Pullins

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

May 5, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,v.DEMETRIUS PULLINS, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This
matter is before the Court on Defendant Demetrius
Pullins' (“Defendant”) pro se Motion
for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [63]
(“Motion” or “Motion for Extension of
Time”).

I.
BACKGROUND

On June
4, 2014, Defendant was sentenced to two hundred fifty (250)
months incarceration with five (5) years of supervised
release after pleading guilty to one count of Possession with
Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and one count
of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e).
([48], [50]). The judgment of conviction was entered on June
6, 2014. ([50]). Defendant did not appeal his conviction or
sentence.

On
April 3, 2017, Defendant filed his Motion.[1] Defendant
requests an extension of time to file a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(“Section 2255 motion”). Defendant argues that he
has been housed in facilities where he was unable to conduct
the necessary research to file a Section 2255 motion within
the one-year statutory timeframe.

II.
DISCUSSION

A.
Legal Standard

Section
2255 motions are subject to a one-year statute of
limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The limitations period
generally runs from the date on which the judgment of
conviction becomes final. Id.[2] If a federal
defendant does not file an appeal, the judgment of conviction
becomes final when the time to file an appeal-fourteen days
in this case-expires. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1);
Mederos v. United States, 218 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th
Cir. 2000); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). A federal court may
consider the merits of an untimely Section 2255 motion only
if the movant establishes that he is actually innocent or
that the limitations period should be equitably tolled.
San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257, 1267-68 (11th
Cir. 2011); United States v. Montano, 398 F.3d 1276,
1279-80 (11th Cir. 2005). The limitations period may be
equitably tolled only if the movant exercised reasonable
diligence in pursuing his rights and his filing delay
resulted from extraordinary circumstances outside his
control. See Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549,
2562, 2565 (2010). The burden to show that equitable tolling
is warranted “rests squarely on the petitioner, ”
who must “show a causal connection between the alleged
extraordinary circumstances and the late filing of the
petition.” San Martin, 633 F.3d at 1267-68.
Equitable tolling is a “rare and extraordinary
remedy.” Id. at 1271 (quotation marks
omitted).

B.
Analysis

Defendant
did not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence.
His judgment of conviction thus became final on June 20,
2014, fourteen days after judgment was entered on June 6,
2014. The limitations period began on June 20, 2014, and
ended on June 20, 2015, one year later.[3] Because Defendant
seeks to file a Section 2255 motion after June 20, 2015, his
Section 2255 motion is untimely. This failure to timely file
can be excused only if Defendant shows that the period should
be equitably tolled.[4]

Accepting
as true the statements in his Motion, Defendant does not meet
his burden to show that he is entitled to equitable tolling.
Defendant claims that he was held in state custody on a writ
for twenty-two (22) months and that the facility only allowed
access to the law library for ten (10) minutes, presumably
each day. The law library allegedly only provided state law
materials. Defendant, however, fails to show how this limited
access to legal materials caused him to be unable to file a
timely Section 2255 motion. Defendant does not claim that his
detention in state custody was unconstitutional,
inappropriate, or so outside of routine practice to qualify
as an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying
equitable tolling. See Dodd v. United States, 365
F.3d 1273, 1282-83 (11th Cir. 2004) (prisoner separated from
legal papers for over ten months did not meet
“extraordinary circumstances” exception to the
tolling limitations); see also Knight v. Sec'y, Fla.
Dep't of Corr., 2011 WL 3349042 at *4 (M.D. Fla.
Aug. 3, 2011)) (“neither an alleged inadequate prison
law library, nor limited access to the library establishes
extraordinary circumstances warranting an equitable tolling
of the limitation period.”); Williams v. United
States, 2011 WL 1878124 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2011)
(petitioner's prisoner status and the realities of
incarceration are not extraordinary circumstances sufficient
to apply equitable tolling).

Defendant
has not shown that he diligently pursued his rights or that
extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing his
Section 2255 motion. Defendant is not entitled to an
extension of the deadline to file a Section 2255 motion, and
his Motion for Extension of Time is denied.

III.
CONCLUSION

For the
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant
Demetrius Pullins' Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.